[copperx]

What does arXiv provide that your conference proceedings / association doesn't?

For example, I usually log in to the ACM site and go to my SIGs and see what's new there. I've never thought about visiting arXiv.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

It provides basically a subset (maybe around a third) of the same interesting papers that I see in conference proceedings, but it provides them earlier (typically 1 month to 1 year earlier). This can be important as my field (NLP) is quite fast-paced.

Just to give a concrete example, this paper (which was a relevant read for me) was published in TACL in July this year but was available in arXiv since February: https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.01595

[beevai142]

In physics, arXiv is where it's at --- conference proceedings are usually not very relevant, and people usually put also them on arxiv.

[mkehrt]

I'd be willing to be the GP is in CS; in CS, conferences are where it's at.

[tachim]

Conferences certainly dominate journals, but most people publish their work on arxiv first, anyway.

[eslaught]

I'm in CS (at the intersection of PL/compilers/HPC), and I've never heard of anyone in my field doing that. In fact, the only papers I've read on arxiv have been ones linked on HN.

[scott_s]

I'm in a similar intersection (hi!), and same goes for me. I want to change that, though. I have started publishing tech reports (I work in an industry research lab) whenever I submit a paper for review. I'm tired of work being stuck in endless review cycles, not public and not referenceable. Were I still in academia, I would submit to arxiv, and I have even recommended this to grad students.

[argonaut]

Virtually every ML paper is posted on arxiv before conferences.

[Ar-Curunir]

At least for theoretical CS and cryptography, Crypto ePrint and arXiv often have more detailed full versions of the paper. These are often invaluable for understanding proofs and other important details.